Commentary
The uprisings showed that foreign military intervention rarely produced democratic breakthroughs.
Amr Hamzawy, Sarah Yerkes
{
"authors": [
"Daniel Brumberg"
],
"type": "testimony",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "DCG",
"programs": [
"Democracy, Conflict, and Governance"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East"
],
"topics": []
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Testimony
Arab Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Complex Encounter
Published on Oct 8, 2002
Source: Carnegie
Arab Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Complex Encounter
Dr. Daniel Brumberg
Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Associate Professor, Department of Government, Georgetown University
Prepared for: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations
October 8, 2002
Summary
(Click here
for complete testimony)
Any analyst seeking to explain the relationship between Arab public opinion and American foreign policy must recognize the highly politicized nature of the topic. Pro-Israeli institutions acknowledge that Arab public opinion is hostile to the U.S., but often insist that such hostility reflects deeply ingrained cultural or religious attitudes. "They hate us because they hate us" goes the refrain. Those who speak from a pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian perspective often assert that such hostility is largely a consequence of U.S. foreign policy, and in particular the failure of the Bush administration to play the role of honest peace broker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Solve that conflict in a fair and just manner, they argue, and much of the anti-Americanism reflected in the Arab press, the speeches of religious leaders, and in recent polling data, will subside.
The purpose of my testimony today is to transcend this politicized debate by providing a more systematic analysis of the roots and implications of Arab hostility towards the United States. My analysis is based on a distinction between Islamist and Arab nationalist ideologues, their immediate audiences in university, professional and religious institutions, and the wider Arab populace. While this model simplifies a complex reality, I believe that grasping the relationship between these three concentric (if idealized) circles of influence and interaction is essential.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The United States Should Apply the Arab Spring’s Lessons to Its Iran Response
- Sub-Saharan African Migrants in Morocco: Security Concerns and the Test of Human RightsCommentary
Is Morocco’s migration policy protecting Sub-Saharan African migrants or managing them for political and security ends? This article unpacks the gaps, the risks, and the paths toward real rights-based integration.
Soufiane Elgoumri
- What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for NowCommentary
A conversation with Karim Sadjadpour and Robin Wright about the recent protests and where the Islamic Republic might go from here.
Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright
- The Middle East’s Promising Gen ZCommentary
Fifteen years after the Arab uprisings, a new generation is mobilizing behind an inclusive growth model, and has the technical savvy to lead an economic transformation that works for all.
Jihad Azour
- Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring IranCommentary
Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.
Bashir Kitachaev
